The Managing Director vs Kothakapu Mohan Reddy And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 3563 Tel

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD

                    I.A.NO.1 OF 2019
                         IN/AND
                 MACMA NO. 1254 OF 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT:


       I.A.No.1 of 2019 filed by RTC for being mentioned is

taken up and after hearing both sides, the appeal itself is

disposed of.

2.     This appeal is directed by the RTC against the award

and decree dated 05.12.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents

Claims      Tribunal-cum-I     Additional   District    Judge,

Mahabubnagar in O.P.No.374 of 2014, whereby the tribunal

awarded compensation of Rs.10,60,000/- with interest @ 9%

per annum as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-.


3.     For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are

referred to as arrayed in the tribunal.


4.     Before the tribunal, respondent No.1, owner of the

pulsar bike bearing No.AP 23 Q 3372 set exparte.

Respondent No.2 - RTC filed counter denying the claim of the

petition.

5. In order to prove the case of the claimants, before the

tribunal, the claimants examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked

Exs.A.1 to A.5. No oral or documentary evidence was

adduced on behalf of the respondents.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the RTC

contended that the compensation granted by the tribunal is

on higher side and that when the claim petition is filed under

Section 166(1) (c) of the M.V.Act, the claimant has to prove

the negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle,

but he failed to prove the same and that while the rider of the

bike trying to cross the bus, which was triple riding, lost

control, fell on the road and sustained injuries and that the

tribunal failed to consider the charge sheet filed by the police

and the report given by a relative of the deceased that the

accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the

deceased and hence, prayed to allow the appeal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended

that the award passed by the tribunal is well considered and

hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

9. The deceased was pillion rider on the vehicle of the 1st

respondent, which got dashed the RTC bus. Having regard to

the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the

record, the order passed by the tribunal is well considered on

all aspects and needs no interference of this Court. However,

the interest @ 9% per annum granted by the tribunal is on

higher side is reduced to 7.5% per annum and accordingly,

the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. RTC is directed to

deposit the compensation amount within two months from

today and 75% of the liability can be recovered from the 1st

respondent by filing an execution petition as rightly observed

by the tribunal. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2019 is closed.

10. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.

_______________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD,J Date: 18.11.2019 kvrm